Again, people with no experience maybe.

That's why I suggest a mitigation to the increases for industry based on local employment. Data centers employ very few people per-Killowatt and so contribute a lot less to the local economy compared to those other industries.

It would make sense in conjunction with an employment based mitigation. Data centers employ very few people once operational (they're not called lights-out facilities for nothing), so no mitigation. Major manufacturer provides many steady jobs, more mitigation for them.

Of course, things get complicated. There are mini data centers being set up in people's back yards where the waste heat warms the home owners house. That doesn't employ a lot of people but gets effectively double use of the energy for at least a good part of the year, offsetting other energy use, so it should see some form of mitigation as well.

The bigger question though is how long until the data centers are abandoned? The big AI companies and their investors are operating at a loss as they jocky for market share and train ever larger models. But will people actually find the AI useful enough to pay for it once the investors start demanding their ROI? Will managers come to realize that they might be better off hiring people suffering schizophrenia with frequent psychotic episodes?

End to end encryption, for a toilet? Frankny I do not want a TOILET to connect me "end-to-end" with anybody. They're doing it wrong.

Time to pull up the sheet on IOT. Not only has it gone up it's own backside, now it's trying to go up ours too.

What you said was dumb because what we need is to reduce emissions further than our weak targets. Also automakers do NOT have any trouble meeting the targets. They could have met those targets years ago, but they would have had to make less exciting vehicles. You're putting your excitement over sustainability. This explains why you support a child molester's tampering with the future.

You cannot make a market freer by removing all regulations. That's a total misunderstanding of how markets work.

"R&D is a sunk cost, especially if it was subsidized. Nobody's going to try to recoup it"

Wat

How about "hit", the most common word used to express the concept.

(etc.)

That's all true if your goal is to serve customers, as opposed to spying on them.

It's happening now. There are serious effects now. And there is mostly a lot of thumb-sitting going on.

Yes, for profit.

AI is chewing through NATURAL RESOURCES faster.

We don't have to pretend, we can see it happening right now. Or rather, not happening.

Nonsense.

Why would I care? I don't speak a language for which call quality matters.

Paying three times as much or more for someone else to keep records for you is dumb. My phone keeps records for me.

Using the word "even" here implies that we would expect Microsoft to be competent, but no one with experience with Microsoft expects that.

Because for the past 30 or so years, it has worked very well for MS to keep their main products barely useable, rely on lock-in and chase the next big thing so they can get their dirty hands on it early and lock more people into more products.

That is exactly wrong. Beta versions are there to find bugs. If nobody complained about them, they won't be found. So if you try beta versions, please DO complain about bugs.

I guess "vibe-something" is going to be the anti-word of 2026. People are slowly waking up to what it actually means to let the AI do the work.

I'm not dissing AI, I'm using it extensively myself and there's a few AI whitepapers with my name on them. But like any tool, it can be great when used correctly and ruin your day when not.